RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01331
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded
to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was young and a long way from home. He was befriended by bad
people and felt trapped with no way out.
The applicant submits no supporting documentation.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 August
1974. On 1 October 1976, he was tried and convicted by a
general court-martial of larceny, uttering a false check and
wrongfully using a military identification card and a commissary
exchange card. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge,
confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of $140.00
pay per month for six months and reduction to the grade of
airman basic. The convening authority remitted any unserved
confinement and forfeitures on 11 February 1977 and approved the
remainder of the sentence.
The applicant was discharged on 6 April 1977. His service
characterization is listed as under than honorable conditions.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. The applicant requests his
discharge be upgraded to honorable. After a review of the
applicant’s submission, it does not appear he is aware that his
service characterization is actually under other than honorable
conditions.
Title 10 U.S.C 1552(f) limits the Boards ability to correct
court-martial records. Specifically, it permits the correction
of a record to reflect actions taken by a reviewing authority
and the correction of records related to action on the sentence
of courts-martial for the purpose of clemency.
The applicant alleges no error or injustice. There was no error
with the processing of the court-martial. He pled not guilty at
trial; however, the court adjudged guilt based on the evidence
presented by the prosecution. The approved sentence was below
the maximum possible sentence of a dishonorable discharge,
confinement at hard labor for five years, forfeiture of all pay
and allowances and reduction to E-1.
Rules for Court-Martial 1003(b)(8)(C) states that a bad conduct
discharge is designed as punishment for bad conduct. It also
indicates that a bad conduct discharge is more than just a
service characterization; it is a punishment for crimes
committed while a member of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the
discharge was well within the legal limits and an appropriate
sentence for the offenses committed.
Clemency in this case would be would be unfair to those
individuals who honorably served their country while in uniform.
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 25 June 2012 (Exhibit D) for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After careful
consideration of the applicant’s request and the available
evidence of record, we find no evidence which indicates that the
applicant’s service characterization, which had its basis in his
conviction by general court-martial and was a part of the
2
sentence of the military court, was improper or that it exceeded
the limitations set forth in the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). We have considered applicant's overall quality
of service, the general court-martial conviction which
precipitated the discharge, and the seriousness of the offenses
to which convicted. In the interest of justice we considered
upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was no
evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief
sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting
the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered
with this application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-01331 in Executive Session on 20 September 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 12.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 30 May 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 12.
Panel Chair
Panel Chair
Member
Member
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00802
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00802 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find no evidence which indicates that the applicant’s service...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01928
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01928 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). On 18 May 1984, the Air Force Court of Military Review found the approved findings and the sentence correct in law and fact. We find no evidence which indicates the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03857
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03857 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to general (under honorable conditions). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application is described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02717
Since being discharged from the Air Force he has worked diligently to better his life and he is a productive citizen in his community. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The applicant’s time in military service was about two years, and a little less than half of that time was spent either AWOL or in confinement.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04846
Unfortunately, JAJM does not have any record of the applicants court martial so it is difficult to make a well informed recommendation. Through research, they determined that he filed a petition for grant of review with the United States Court of Military Appeals on 10 May 82 and the Court denied the petition on 23 Jun 82. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02617
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02617 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded. The applicants sentence to a BCD was within legal limits. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR, dated 23 Jan 2014, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01467
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01467 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His characterization of discharge be upgraded from dishonorable to honorable and he receive pay, in the grade of E-4, that he was improperly denied while serving in...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00763
On 25 February 1954, the Air Force Board of Review approved the findings and sentence as adjudged. Specifically, Section 1552(f)(1) permits the correction of a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the UCMJ. Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has failed to provide any evidence concerning his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03246
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03246 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03615
JAJM states that upgrading the applicants BCD is not appropriate and recommends the Board deny the request as untimely or on the merits. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly...